I don't know ... I noticed that two of the three were bailed out but the third was not.

I really find the idea of bail repugnant to our legal system. A person's freedom should not be bought, and I think it's completely unfair that one of the kids has to sit behind bars while the others go free simply because he wasn't the daughter of a millionaire. They should all go free while awaiting trial - or none of them should. They all committed the same crime so they should all face freedom or incarceration together. Money should have NOTHING to do with it.

I know this is a side-issue and not directly related to the story, but the idea of bail has always bothered me.

The three teenagers will be tried together at the same court on January 9 next year.

If everyone remembers following the riots courts were sitting nearly24/7 to ensure that those involved were dealt with quickly and very few if any were granted bail....even the two young men in this case were remanded to jail but this rich girl was not, even though the value of the good she had in her car was £5K+ compared to some who were jailed for taking a bottle of water.........

She is accused with Alexander Elliot-Joahill, 18, and a 17-year-old who cannot be named for legal reasons of stealing £5,000-worth of electrical goods from Currys, £500 worth of items from Comet and £500 worth of alcohol and cigarettes from a BP petrol station, all in Woolwich, south-east London.

Source:- DailyMail....

Notice how she and her family have been given time engage the services of a good lawyer, rather than having to rely on a court appointed one....

I thought that once you had a conviction, and "DUN YER TIME" that was it, but aparrently not - stupid me!

THe traumatised abuse victims of pervert PC Stephen Mitchell have been told they will not get compensation because of their criminal records.

At least 16 women and girls were raped or sexually assaulted by the officer after he arrested them.

But many were drug addicts with shoplifting or fraud convictions which means, despite their ordeal, they cannot receive damages under strict rules.

Advertisement >>

Mitchell, 42, was jailed for life in January for the attacks in his squad car and police interview rooms. His victims, aged 17 to 48, were forced to relive their ordeal during a five-week trial because the PC claimed they were lying.

Their snub by the ­Criminal ­Injuries Compensation Authority sparked fury among friends and campaigners yesterday. One said:

Shirina wrote:I don't know ... I noticed that two of the three were bailed out but the third was not.

I really find the idea of bail repugnant to our legal system. A person's freedom should not be bought, and I think it's completely unfair that one of the kids has to sit behind bars while the others go free simply because he wasn't the daughter of a millionaire. They should all go free while awaiting trial - or none of them should. They all committed the same crime so they should all face freedom or incarceration together. Money should have NOTHING to do with it.

I know this is a side-issue and not directly related to the story, but the idea of bail has always bothered me.

Maybe I've missed the point Shirina, but having re-read your post the impression I get (still) is that your against the idea of bail.

Maybe I've missed the point Shirina, but having re-read your post the impression I get (still) is that your against the idea of bail.

I am against the idea of bail, which has nothing to do with locking everyone up and sorting out who is innocent later.

I'm against bail because those who can afford to meet bail go free while those who can't must wait behind bars while awaiting trial. I don't believe money should have anything to do with whether or not you're locked up during the pre-trial period. That's my point.

The idea of bail is essentially saying that you can buy your innocence until you are proven guilty at trial. Those who are poor are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.

When crimes are of a such a nature, bail is not an option. Bail was implemented to lessen the crowding of jail facilities...it has absolutely nothing to do with a person's guilt or innocence. I think Shirina has a lack of understanding of the purpose of bail.

When crimes are of a such a nature, bail is not an option. Bail was implemented to lessen the crowding of jail facilities...it has absolutely nothing to do with a person's guilt or innocence. I think Shirina has a lack of understanding of the purpose of bail.

If you can make bail, you go free until your trial date. If you can't make bail, you sit in jail until your trial date.

Thus, you can literally buy your freedom between your hearing and the trial date. If you're poor, you get to rot in jail.

When crimes are of a such a nature, bail is not an option. Bail was implemented to lessen the crowding of jail facilities...it has absolutely nothing to do with a person's guilt or innocence. I think Shirina has a lack of understanding of the purpose of bail.

If you can make bail, you go free until your trial date. If you can't make bail, you sit in jail until your trial date.

Thus, you can literally buy your freedom between your hearing and the trial date. If you're poor, you get to rot in jail.

Am I missing something?

Yes. Bail is denied the accused if the judge presiding over the bail hearing so decides.

Too funny. As I understand the bail issue, almost everyone can get bail depending on the circumstances of the alleged crime - crimes of murder, treason, terrorism etc omitted. Take a case of two people committing the same identical crime and both are apprehended, charged and up before His Honor applying for bail.

The theft - a pair of socks from a store that was adjacent to some rioting mobs.

The first person is Joe Empty Pockets. His bail is set at fifty dollars. His Honor has determined that Poor Joe has a clean sheet and is unlikely to be able to pay more than fifty dollars for bail. Mr. Empty Pockets has to call his best friend to see if he can scrounge up fifty dollars.

The second person is Fred Got Rocks. Fred went to the riots in his Ferrari and was nabbed by a spike belt trying to avoid confrontation with the police. His Honor has determined that bail for Mr. Got Rocks is set at fifty thousand dollars because Mr. Got Rocks has a questionable past and has had bail on many previous occasions. Mr. Got Rocks flashes his gold card and is on his way.

As I understand it, bail is just a concept to keep people out of jail until such time as they are found guilty of something as long as there is a high probability that they will show up for their trial.

From my understanding of it, bail is set based on the nature of the crime, past offenses, and the flight risk. A single wealthy person with a passport may not receive bail at all because of the risk of that person fleeing to a country with no extradition treaty.

Petty crimes may have small bails, but in the case of the three busted with stolen loot, in the US at least, they would be facing a charge of grand larceny. That's a felony and would warrant a larger bail.

For most people, it's not difficult to scrounge up $50 to post bail. But for more serious crimes, the bail set would be impossible to pay for someone with modest means, but a wealthy person could pay it without breaking a sweat.

The US Constitution does prevent the courts from setting excessive bail, but that does not mean that a bail can only be set to an amount that the accused is capable of paying. This is why there are bail hearings to determine how much bail should be - or even if there should be any bail at all. For lesser crimes, some leeway might be given for the accused's socioeconomic class, but for more serious crimes, even for a first offender, bail will likely be more than what can be paid.

I am not at all sure how bail bondsmen work and how much they factor into the equation.

Shirina wrote:From my understanding of it, bail is set based on the nature of the crime, past offenses, and the flight risk. A single wealthy person with a passport may not receive bail at all because of the risk of that person fleeing to a country with no extradition treaty.

True.

Shirina wrote:The US Constitution does prevent the courts from setting excessive bail, but that does not mean that a bail can only be set to an amount that the accused is capable of paying.

One's personal financial ability is irrelevant to this prohibition; "excessive" refers to the crime, past criminal record, and flight risk, not the criminal’s socio-economic status.

Shirina wrote:I am not at all sure how bail bondsmen work and how much they factor into the equation.

They charge a percentage of your bail amount (for instance, if your bail amount is $10,000.00, they might charge $1,000.00), take your picture and gather other personal information, put up the full bail amount, and assume financial responsibility for your court appearance. If you don't show up, they stand to forfeit bail, and will most definitely send "Tiny" out to find you, arrest you, and drag you to jail so that they can recover the bail amount.

"Even more lulz. If I hear one more conservative whining about how "unfair" the tax burden is on the wealthy, why ... I'll quote you Oz and throw it back at them. Life ain't fair." ~ Shirina

oh, come on...I know you're more intelligent than this. Conservatives don't "whine" that the tax burden on the wealthy is unfair...the wealthy already pay not only "their fair share" but the shares of most everyone else as well. Conservatives maintain that one person should not be taxed at a rate more or less than another regardless of a person's wealth, or lack of it, because the Constitution allegedly requires that the law be applied equally to all persons...the ability to pay more than others notwithstanding.

because the Constitution allegedly requires that the law be applied equally to all persons...the ability to pay more than others notwithstanding.

This may come as a shock, but sometimes the Constitution didn't get it right, and this is one of those times. No system of government can survive if you tax a person beyond their ability to pay, and taxing people into poverty is the quickest way to spark a revolt. The Founders should have realized this, and given the current ridiculously huge wealth disparity in this country, no "fair" tax would be truly equitable for either party.

Take Cain's 9-9-9 plan. The rich receive a nice and cozy 10% tax decrease while the poor will see 27% of their income go to taxes without any deductions or a fat tax return in April. Now, how do you expect people barely getting by to fork over 27%? That's almost what the wealthy are paying NOW.

You're arguing that the Constitution is wrong because it doesn't advocate "rob the rich, feed the poor"...??? Robin Hood mentality is a surely popular among "the poor" but our founding fathers probably found it a bit hard to reconcile the principle that all are created equal and due equal protection under the law and saying that the rich should be taxed half their income while the poor pay none simply because the rich could pay with less "pain". Either we are all equal under the law...or we're not. You can't have it both ways.

The irony here is now your own idealism is showing - something you quite often accuse me of having.

True equality does not happen, not even under the law. Oh sure, we may be entitled to the same procedures, but how we arrive at the results of those procedures are hardly equal. We all know that money influences even criminal trials, we all know that a woman can shake their cleavage and get off with a warning for something that any other driver would have been ticketed for, we all know that a person's beauty or ugliness can influence a jury ... on and on it goes.

But more relevant to the point, we live in an expensive nation. The cost of living here is high - the US is one of the highest in the world - and the cost of maintaining it is even higher. Most of the infrastructure we enjoy and most of the achievements America can be proud of occurred when the tax on the wealthy was much MUCH higher than it is today. At one time, tax on income over $200k was 90% and at that time we had the highest standard of living in the world. Now we're 11th. How did that happen, I wonder?

Then - given that the 300,000 richest Americans earn more income and hold more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined - you actually believe we can continue paying for this country by taking food out of the mouths of the poor? I mean ... seriously?

I've said it hundreds of times - the Founding Fathers didn't even believe in their hearts that America would even succeed much less prosper. None of them could have had any idea just how massive we would become, and certainly had no clue as to how we would pay for it all. Sure, it's a lot easier to tax everyone equally in 1776 when we were an agrarian society, most people grew their own food and were utterly self-reliant. Obviously people living in the wilderness in those famous log cabins didn't need to worry about roads, police, firefighting, public schools, an enormous standing army, and a hundred other things that taxes now pay for.

We can't meet our bills or pay down the debt NOW ... and you really think that lowering taxes on the biggest money generators and shifting that burden to people who make $8/hour is going to help? If the top 300,000 people make more than the bottom 150 million ... how much blood do you think you can squeeze from that stone?

And allow me to reiterate a very important point. Historically revolutions and revolts occur when the poor and lower middle classes are taxed into oblivion. The wealthy will NEVER have the support of the masses, and believe me, I've heard a lot of blowhards talking as if the American people are ready to rise up this instant and fight our government on behalf of the rich. I can only laugh myself silly over that.

No, revolts start with the bottom middle, not the impoverished and definitely not the rich ... after all, revolutions are bad for business unless you're an arms dealer. If any president or congress shifts the bulk of the tax burden from the rich to the poor, it would be political suicide, and I can almost guarantee you that civil unrest would reach heights not seen since the Civil War.

The Founding Fathers never planned for there to be a rich aristocracy in this country nor did they foresee us having the third worst wealth disparity in the industrialized and developing world. If there wasn't such a huge wealth gap, then a fair flat tax would be possible. But not now. It's too late for that.

Really ... it's pretty bad when the only nations with a higher disparity are those third world African nations with super-rich warlords and a starving general population.

"The Founding Fathers never planned for there to be a rich aristocracy in this country nor did they foresee us having the third worst wealth disparity in the industrialized and developing world. If there wasn't such a huge wealth gap, then a fair flat tax would be possible. But not now. It's too late for that." ~ Shirina

Au contraire....I think the Founding Fathers had every intention of America being somewhat of a rich aristocracy...just not one of literal titles and blue-blood lineage.

I don't see how a flat tax is putting the burden on the poor disproportionally...why is one allegedly entitled to exist as a full member of a society in good standing while contributing NOTHING to the betterment of that said society other than being a drain on the collective resources of the society simply because of a lack of "wealth". There is NOTHING unfair about asking every single person to contribute 5 cents on the dollar for every dollar they earn...nothing. Progressive taxation should be recognized for what it is...an unconstitutional and therefore illegal practice.

Flat taxation penalises the poor, for the simple and obvious reason that a greater proportion of their income is devoted to the essential process of staying alive. Millionaires like you and I have much wider discretion about where and when we spend our money - or save it.

I don't see how a flat tax is putting the burden on the poor disproportionally

As OW said, the disproportion comes from what has to be sacrificed. If you've ever had to live on a low income, you should know that every penny is accounted for and you still often come up short. There is absolutely no safety net, no savings for an emergency, and every day can be a nail-biting experience hoping that some new expense doesn't crop up - like having to make a car repair. Since you're probably driving a piece of crap on a low income anyhow, car repairs are a real fear. In order to make rent and pay utilities, you skimp on the quality of your foods, and, if you're lucky, the only source of entertainment you might have is basic cable. Your social life is practically zero since you can't afford to go out and do anything, and if anything in your house breaks, it is irreplaceable. The poor actually rely on their tax returns as part of their income, not simply bonus money they can run off and take a vacation with. And God forbid if you have to buy your own health care. That is absolutely impossible. Unless you are incurably lazy, living poor or on the dole flat out sucks. Taking even more money out of their hands can literally mean the difference between a crappy studio apartment in the middle of Crime Central, or no home at all.

What do the rich give up? I don't see their misery, and I certainly don't see them scrounging the couch cushions for loose change so they can afford a cheeseburger at McDonald's or having their biggest financial decision of the month be whether or not they buy brand-name Mac 'n Cheese instead of the generic store brand.

Aside from the entrenched conservatives, no one in this country is going to support legislation that would literally take money from the poor and hand it to the rich - who already have enough money to stay light years ahead of the curve.

Au contraire....I think the Founding Fathers had every intention of America being somewhat of a rich aristocracy...just not one of literal titles and blue-blood lineage.

Actually, if you delve deeply into the history of the Founding Fathers, a lot of what they said that hints at a rich aristocracy centers around how to resolve the issue of slavery. They knew even as they penned the words "All men are created equal" that they had to somehow develop a work-around that would allow them to maintain the institution of slavery. So they figured they could do this by creating artificial conditions for the application of rights that involved things that they knew slaves would never have: property, literacy skills, money, etc. It had almost nothing to do with actually wanting a rich aristocracy and almost everything to do with trying to circumvent the slavery issue. Now ... I would hate to see that perverted into an endorsement of an aristocracy since that's not what it was about. Using the same arguments that once circumvented slavery to circumvent the poor would be highly questionable.

why is one allegedly entitled to exist as a full member of a society in good standing while contributing NOTHING to the betterment of that said society other than being a drain on the collective resources of the society simply because of a lack of "wealth".

They contribute through paying sales tax and other taxes. They also contribute to the betterment of society through their own blood, sweat, and tears. If the silver-spoon rich think that's a small thing, they should climb out of their leather upholstered chairs, exit their air conditioned offices, and do physical labor work for just six months. You, as someone who works in construction, should know precisely what I'm talking about. Only the purely lazy contribute nothing, but that's not who we're talking about. They wouldn't pay taxes no matter what the tax rate is.

There is NOTHING unfair about asking every single person to contribute 5 cents on the dollar for every dollar they earn...nothing. Progressive taxation should be recognized for what it is...an unconstitutional and therefore illegal practice.

It seems fair on the outside, but I doubt anyone will accept seeing the rich receive a 30% tax decrease while the poor receive a 5% tax increase. I doubt the nation could be run on the bread crumbs you squeeze from the poor. Good luck with that.

Even the poor get a boost in self-esteem when they contribute...that they are part of the "giving" in society rather than just the "taking".

I totally agree ... almost everyone wants to feel useful and productive. The working poor - which is who we're talking about - find that feeling in their jobs. As crappy as those jobs might be and as low-paying as they are, there is still a measure of pride taken in an honest day's work.

However, when those people come home to balance their checkbook, rest assured they aren't feeling guilty about not paying the same tax rate as someone who makes 100 times what they do.

The ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labor is just as strong as taking pride in the labor itself. Otherwise, we'd all be happy volunteering instead of being paid employees. There are so many costs and sacrifices that the working poor must pay that more than make up for their lack of taxes, things that some people take for granted.

I often wonder whether being rich is even worth it. After all, with all that they have and all of the virtually limitless options set before them, only the truly bitter, greedy, and unhappy would complain about what the poor don't pay. You would almost think that the conservatives who incessantly complain about this actually believe being poor is better.

I've always looked at it from this perspective: If I remember, the tax on winnings is around 46%. Thus if I won the lottery and found myself $50 million richer ... am I going to mope around because I'm going to receive "only" $25 million? Hell no!

All of this whining about the poor comes across like a spoiled princess who only received one pony instead of two. Never mind the fact that she already has a stable filled with ponies. It never ceases to amaze me how the wealthy are rarely appreciative of what they have. Even the people who are modestly well-off should be grateful. But instead, they spend so much of their time complaining that they don't have more or raising a stink because a poor person has a cell phone. I can only imagine what their Thanksgiving dinners are like ... do they even know what being thankful means?

I'm not a completely heartless bastard...I know the poor stuggle; however, I can't and won't advocate the TAKING of almost half one person's income while taking none of another's and calling it "fair" simply because one has "more" than another. If we are to believe that we are all "equal under the law", then progressive taxation is a direct insult to this core principle of our society.

OK, so, if a tax take of say 2 and a half % is what the rich are willing to pay, saying they are willing to pay ANY, then it is the SAME from the poor. Not a 10th of a % more. This to include local purchase tax and all local taxes taken into account.

At present here in UK, the poor, as defined by the government's own guidelines are paying over 40% in tax. Let's see the "rich" pay the same amount and not scream about it!

The present system IS unfair!

Take into account that Lord Ashcroft, a multi £ Billionaire, boasts that he pays LESS IN TAX PER ANNUM THAN DOES HIS CLEANING LADY!

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:I'm not a completely heartless bastard...I know the poor stuggle; however, I can't and won't advocate the TAKING of almost half one person's income while taking none of another's and calling it "fair" simply because one has "more" than another. If we are to believe that we are all "equal under the law", then progressive taxation is a direct insult to this core principle of our society.

Without knowing anything more about you, I would be fairly confident that you have a Savings account as well as your checking account, and possibly investments in property or stock, i.e. a surplus of wealth exceeding your everyday needs. The contrast is with the many people who don't have sufficient money to meet their daily needs.

however, I can't and won't advocate the TAKING of almost half one person's income while taking none of another's and calling it "fair"

I'm not calling it "fair." What I WILL say is that life isn't fair. Too bad. Boo hoo. I'll buy the rich a beer so they can cry in it.

Because that's precisely what the rich and their supporters would tell me if I complain about the high wealth disparity, stagnant wages, or an inaccessible health care system. Why should life be fair for the rich when it sure as hell isn't fair for the poor?

After all, remember this quote written by you in this very same thread?

If you've access to the means to post bail and others dont', it does not mean there is an injustice...it only means that life ain't fair...a concept liberals REALLY have a hard time grasping.

Now, why is it that only liberals supposedly have a hard time grasping this concept while the rich and their supporters seem to be failing abysmally at grasping it as well?

I'd also point out a glaringly obvious reason why the poor pay no taxes. If they did, many of them would most likely need more government assistance to stay on their proverbial feet. Cain's idiotic 9-9-9 plan would literally take 27% of the poor's income in taxes without any deductions or tax refunds. Now ... what do you suppose will happen when millions of working poor who are barely holding their own right now suddenly find themselves making 27% less money? They're going to run to the government and get on the dole. How much more, do you suppose, will that cost in tax payer money? How many tens of thousands, if not millions, will give up working altogether because they are not smart enough or skilled enough to work middle class jobs and will decide instead to become permanent welfare recipients? How many ex-cons will turn back to crime when they discover those minimum wage jobs (which is all ex-cons really qualify for) can't pay their bills?

As for life not being fair and how equal things are supposed to be, here's a little homework assignment. Google up the story of the banker CEO who stole billions of dollars in mortgage fraud and was was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Then look up the homeless man who stole $100 so he could stay in a detox facility then later returned the money and voluntarily turned himself in. He was sentenced to 15 years.

The Jury system came about through an honest desire to ensure a fair trial by one's equals. However, a Judge sitting alone will almost certainly be from a privileged background and a property-owner with a reasonable income from Investments.

The instinct of such a person will always be to uphold the Law of Property, and perhaps even to empathise with a fellow professional who happened to get caught with his fingers in the till.

Bail is never handed down fairly. Just look at Sandusky 100,000 unsecured bail for at least 40 counts of child abuse ( I call it rape) If the had been one of us the bail would be extremly high and you would have to put up something to secure the bail. Our system is flawed in many ways.

dimsum wrote:Bail is never handed down fairly. Just look at Sandusky 100,000 unsecured bail for at least 40 counts of child abuse ( I call it rape) If the had been one of us the bail would be extremly high and you would have to put up something to secure the bail. Our system is flawed in many ways.

Bail has nothing whatsoever to do with the crime. Innocent until proven guilty.

Bail is calculated upon (1) the likelihood that the person will show up in court on court day, and (2) the likelihood that the person will not be a danger to anyone if the person remains out of physical custody.

It is true that those with money tend to get better “treatment”, but that’s because those with money usually retain competent counsel.

Racehorse Haynes would take relatively poor clients from time to time. When the grateful accused asked about the fee, he replied, “Everything you’ve got.” By everything he meant house, car(s), every dime in all of your accounts (bank, credit union, savings and loan, 401-k, IRA, etc.).

When a potential poor client wavered on the fee, he said, “If my fee is too high for you, go down the street to so-and-so’s office. He’s cheap, and you get what you pay for.”

In Texas, none of Racehorse’s clients who were accused of murder ever danced with Ol’ Sparky. In Texas, mind you.